"Allow market forces to take over": The US Perversion of the Intent of the 1970 UNESCO Convention

.
In reply to Kent Davies' 5th September article 'Bulldozers Destroy Priceless Archaeological Site in Cambodia, Dr Robert Steven Bianchi, art historian fulminates:

What do the cultural purists have to say now? Obviously this is not an isolated instance because we can document other cases in which so-called source countries abrogate their responsibilities as custodians of our shared cultural past. These destructive acts by custodians in name but not in deed argue in favor of allowing market forces to take over. Those serious about art–dealers, collectors, museums, and galleries–should collect without any national or international interference because they are the true custodians and preservers of culture.

Well, oddly enough it was precisely "market forces" that led to the destruction of the archaeological site in question! Peter Tompa has a similar approach on his "Told-ya-they-wuz-no-good" blog in which he attacks any nation with which the US government has a cultural property agreement (plus Egypt). Cambodia is one of them, so gets short shrift from Tompa. Methinks he's not read the follow up article (Sept 10th). It is not "unexplained at all", sadly this kind of thing happens all the while.

"Cultural purists" Dr Bianchi? So you think that archaeological sites like the one destroyed by uninformed developers here should be protected by the international community working together, and not just the Cambodian rubber company that owns the land? So do I, so do I.

Tompa draws attention to the word "corruption" in the US-Cambodia MOU. In the context of the implications of what Dr Bianchi says, I'd draw attention to Article II, B and C:

B. Representatives of the Governments of the United States of America and the Kingdom of Cambodia shall participate in efforts to publicize this Memorandum of Understanding and the reasons for it, particularly as they relate to the Bronze and Iron Ages.
C. The Government of the United States of America shall continue to use its best efforts to facilitate technical assistance in cultural resource management and security to the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia, as appropriate under available programs in the public and/or private sectors.

I'd suggest that this case and the reaction to it reflect that the "best efforts" of the US government are not being very effective in this area.

We are increasingly seeing in the CPAC hearings and related events, opinions and texts that demonstrate unequivocally that US dealers and collectors want to use the MOUs as a tool of US imperialism, to dictate to the governments and citizens of other countries what they should and should not be doing and subjecting them to criticism and ridicule if they do not comply in the manner they (the Americans) see fit. This was not at all the intent of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. It was not created to be used as a nationalist tool of domination and exertion of political influence of the USA over the internal policies of other countries, but to secure equable and licit international dealings in cultural property.

I ask again, if the American people are not going to play by the same rules as the rest of the states party to the Convention and merely intend to pervert its ideals to use it to suit their own political and economic aims and exert influence and pressure on foreign governments, then why do they not withdraw from the umbrella of membership of the Convention itself and merely continue applying their CCPIA in a manner which makes their motives for doing so more transparent? I the US intends to continue to support "no-AMERICAN-law-was-broken cultural property banditry", then let it do so openly and not under the umbrella of being party of a Convention which incomplete implementation in fact renders meaningless in the US market.
.